- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:20:12 -0500
- To: Petr Křemen <petr.kremen@fel.cvut.cz>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Petr, greetings. The parts of the 2014 RDF11 specifications to which you refer were copied without change from the 2004 RDF 1.0 specifications. The choice of range for rdf:predicate was discussed in the RDF WG before 2004, and the reason given for the more liberal range specification was, as I recall, to not restrict the reification vocabulary from describing "bad" RDF, which is to say RDF that is syntactically legal but may have conceptual errors incorporated into it. It is important to bear in mind that a reified triple is only described, not asserted, by the reification. The reason for not changing this in 2014 is pure conservatism: if it isn't broken, don't fix it. AFAIK, nobody in the intervening decade had requested that the range of rdf:predicate be changed, and the issue never came up in the extensive process of public commenting on the new standard. So it was not changed. Hope this helps. Pat Hayes On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Petr Křemen <petr.kremen@fel.cvut.cz> wrote: > Folks, > > in the last 25th Feb W3C recommendations I cannot understand, why RDF11-MT (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/) says: > > rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdfs:Resource > > and not > > rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdf:Property > > although the latter informally follows from sec. 5.3.1 of RDF-SCHEMA (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema) > > Cheers, > Petr > > PS: DAWG, please ignore my previous email. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 16:20:41 UTC